Training Aircraft

[greggf]

I had a chance to have a good look at Howie's Lightwing Speed at Narromine. Looks MUCH better in the "flesh" than in its photos. Still pretty much a prototype, in that the finish is a bit rough, but a very impressive machine nonetheless. Very roomy. Looks just as strong as its predecessor Lightwings, and Howie's glass cockpit navigation system is brilliant. The lines are pleasing, without being really sexy. I do find the vertical stabiliser dated (but that's a subjective thing).

 

But....

 

Will it sell alongside the increasingly flash european plastics????

 

I'm agonising over it myself. My head says Lightwing, my heart says Sports Star or Texan. (mind you, my wallet and bank manager in chorus say - forget it!)

 

The Polaris is one of the sexiest machines I've ever seen. Looks like a Ferrari with wings. I got "excited" just walking around it. Unfortunately the price heads in the same direction as the Ferrari.

 

The CT is unique, quirky, has heaps of performance, but I'm looking for low wing this time.

 

The Sting Carbon is VERY attractive. I'm a little sus about the massive bubble canopy without bracing. How strong is it?

 

The Sports Star is beautiful to fly - thanks Peter! - and is a well established machine, with Silverwing's excellent support and backing. It also looks sexy and the bonded plus riveted metal construction means mucho strength. Also, I believe the Sports Star is likely to be the first LSA rated machine on the Oz register.

 

Finally, the FlySynthesis Texan is just so roomy, pretty, strong and well designed. And the NSW Texan dealer, Ian Loveridge, is a good guy I've known for

 

ages.

 

Ohhh, my head hurts.

 

One thing I know is that I want a Rotax 912ULS and a 3-blased composite prop. Scimitar would be nice. Around 100L fuel capacity means a useful range between fills (not necessarily between comfort stops), and UV proofing for the canopy is a given.

 

Living and flying coastal, carbon/composite seems a good idea.

 

Trying to compare apples with apples is bloody hard. Everyone quotes a base price for an aircraft you wouldn't want because it has nothing in it. Then most suppliers quote astronomical prices for components that we know can be purchased elsewhere for 50% or less of the dealer's quote.

 

Each manufacturer also uses different jargon to describe basic components. If a bloke is not careful he will compare apples with raspberries and coconuts.

 

I think it's going to take me 3 months with a spreadsheet before I'm close to ready to make a decision.

 

 

[greggf]

Gees you're quick with the moderation Ian. I was definitely more than just "excited" with the Polaris.

 

 

[Admin]

Gees you're quick with the moderation Ian. I was definitely more than just "excited" with the Polaris.

- Gregg re the Texan it is a magic looking aircraft and the room as well is great - do you know what the MTOW is?

[Guest Fred Bear]

The flysynthesis.com.au website still lists the MTOW of the Texan as 450kgs. Very much time for an update on the aircraft if they haven't yet got it re-certified.

 

For the record the Sting, Star and Allegro and others were the first flying in the LSA category. I don't believe that there is a SportStar flying as yet in the LSA category.

 

There is a good writeup in the back of this months Flight Safety Magazine that explains the LSA category in great detail, however this information is available on the web anyway.

 

As an aside note, Jabiru are selling their J230 aircraft (long winged J200 2 seater) with 6 cylinder engine (cruise around 120 knots) for $94k factory built in LSA category, either registered under RAA or GA register with MTOW of 600kg's. This is a serious competitor in the LSA market. Only thing that comes close is an Allegro for $83k in LSA. There isn't much else about that comes close in terms of new plastic aircraft with those sorts of speeds and luggage carrying ability.

 

Will be interesting to see how they sell. I've heard from someone up there that they have built a new production shed out the back specifically for the J230 model as it's selling like hotcakes at that price. Limited changes are allowed at that price which can be a downside for some people. The J160's are currently selling like nothing has ever before and at $80k'ish they will continue to do so for quite some time. Cruise figures of up to 110 knots are achievable with the new J160 as they have the new engine with hydraulic lifters, so no tappet adjustments any more, just 100 hourly head tightenings. Engine RPM peaks at up to 3,300 rpm, so they can now be run continuously at up to 3050 or thereabouts which helps to give the higher cruise figures. All that with 135 litres, 8+ hours duration, wing tanks, a stack of luggage space and 15 lph fuel burn, they have a very attractive aircraft indeed!

 

 

[Guest Fred Bear]

Gregg says; "The Sting Carbon is VERY attractive. I'm a little sus about the massive bubble canopy without bracing. How strong is it?"

 

To an extent this is a non event for 2 reasons.

 

The sting has a very large and high tail surface. In the event of an aircraft rollover (say on the beach or onto a ditch or whatver) the tail MIGHT hold up the rear of the aircraft thus safely keeping the pilots head and upper body away from impact. No doubt the canopy would smash in a rollover. Safety couldn't be guaranteed in a rollover as if the crash impact forces are great enough, the tail would smash off anyways.

 

Second is the rear of the Sting canopy - you'll notice the white strip behind the pilots / passengers head? This is crabon fibre re-inforced as part of the airframe. If you rolled over this part would protect your head. It's requried for the certification process anyway. You'd be hard pressed to find a certified aircraft that didn't have rollover protection, even in a low-wing design.

 

Some uncertified aircraft such as the Corby Starlet unfortunately offer no roll-over protection, so before as you laugh as the Corby pilot who taxii's by with a George Jettson crash-hat on, no doubt he is very clever and protecting his noggen!

 

I've looked long and hard at the Sting on many occasions and can't fault it. The design, build quality, features and performance is exceptional and hard to beat. It's been around for a few years now (debut in Narromine 2002), so there are others out there looking a little more sexy now days, but it's been around and has proven the test of time with quite a few very satisfied owners in OZ. Definitely worth a closer look. If you're after speed, the retract model offers cruise up to 150 knots. The only real step up from that in terms of performance is an RV in the GA market.

 

 

 

[Admin]

Sorry to have to say this but I will for safety reasons, I know of 1 Sting that after low hrs (I forget exactly how many) the nose wheel assembly had cracks and was picked up just in time. Not long after a new assembly went in it cracked again but unfortunately this time it wasn't picked up and it callapsed but luckily he was just taxiing. The owner only just got it back last week after extensive repairs to the whole front end including prop, engine, front wheel assembly, front cowling and complete firewall.

 

I am a bit disheartened to have to note that there has been absolutly no notice to owners, no AD etc about this given that it has happened twice and I

 

heard (but may not be true as it was just talk) that cracks were found in another Sting in exactly the same place.

 

 

[Guest micgrace]

Hi Ian,

 

Nosegear failure seems to be a reasonably common occurance amongst lightweight aircraft.

 

the fact remains, there are far too many forces acting on the nosewheel concentrated in a small area.(engine loads, landing, weight loads, torsional etc)Plus a healthy dose of vibration at close quarters (engine, prop) guaranteed to create cracks in a poor design. By necessity fairly heavy.

 

Might also have problems from harmonics from engine, matching the nosewheel as well (potentially catastrophic failure) Although how you would check for this in the field is anyone's guess.

 

Still the best by far is a tailwheel a total loss is not catastrophic (best to have a backup skid fitted, just in case). Well removed from everything, lightweight, simple design, low cost to repair, no prop strikes, still have directional control on rollout etc

 

My favorite is a tailwheel even if some of my takeoffs/landings aren't exactly picture perfect.

 

Many guys have there aircraft back in service cheaply in hours after a tailwheel failure, but not with a nosegear failure.

 

Just some thoughts, whatis your thoughts Micgrace

 

 

[greggf]

From memory (56 years and less than 2k bytes) I think the Texan and the Sting are both currently rated at the standard European 450 kg mtow.This will change, and I am assured that something sensible - like 600 or 650kg - will happen shortly under SLA. The European manufacturers just have to be reminded that there is a big potential market that is not hamstrung by their European regs.Re: Nosewheels. This is an issue we (Hastings District Flying Club) are aware of with our Foxbat. We encourage pilots to raise the nose gear asap on takeoff roll, preferably before 30 kts, and hold the nose gear off until slowed right down on the landing roll. This is very easily done in the Fatbox, and should help preserve nosegear mounting points. I know that if the nose gear is held on the ground past 40 kts on a smooth runway, a noticeable shimmy is evident after takeoff as the (unbraked) wheel gradually slows. Unfortunately, getting such a small wheel/tyre dynamically balanced is really difficult. My (very friendly and helpful) local tyre dealer doesn't want a bar of it. He is certain his (automotive) gear can't handle the 6" wheel.I agree that the results of gear failure are a big incentive for tail-dragging. Hmmm, great!!! Something else to ponder.

 

 

[Guest micgrace]

I must mention, when building an aircraft and trying to obtain or get made anything at all, mention aircraft,people servingused to come up with all sorts of excuses. Don't have it (pneumatic riveter, was on the shelf) Can't get it, (Zinc Chromate, it's inyour catalogue) etc

 

I have heard of the wheel shimmy prob, and was cured for a short time on the aircraft by rebalancing the wheel. As for the garage, I don't think their balancer would go down to a small enough diameter anyway.

 

Probably the best solution mightbe to construct something out of a discarded motor,a pulley, a shaft and fit the nosewheel to that and see what happens. (I'd hate to guess the price of a dedicated unit, if available)Try sticking on a few stick on weights to see if it makes it worse or better. experiment to see. (not when flying of course)

 

Check the rim/tryre for runout,(simply hold a square edge very close to the wheel and give it a good spin)shaft for straightness, bearings, side playetc

 

Even look for such weird or unusual things, such as shape of cowl, might direct/create turbulent airflow, exhaust system aimed at it, protruding tangs or anything that may affect airflow. Unlikely, but you just never know.

 

Other than that, everything else is in factory/reg 35 territory(Potential AD coming on)

 

Unfortunatly, most new 'planes seem to be coming out nosewheel only, so it's something we'll just have to live with.

 

Just some thoughts that may help

 

Micgrace

 

 

[pylon500]

Be careful not to confuse wheel shimmy with wheel imbalance, two different problems.Wheel imbalance can lead to vibration annoyance, wheel shimmy can lead to catastrophic failures!!Shimmy can also occour on both nose and tail wheels, but as mentioned earlier, is not quiet as destructive on taildraggers.

 

Arthur.

 

 

[Guest micgrace]

Your quite right. There is a difference, got to be careful with words in every day use, thats how misunderstandings and problems arise. Like I was writing this while having a few drinks

 

Problem is one mimics the other, although they have very different origins. Wheel "vibration / flutter" might be a better way to describe it. If there is a tendency for shimmy an out of balance trye/rim would certainly exacerbate the problem. Balancing may give partial relief, but not cure the underlying problem.

 

This is a problem in all sorts of things, not just aircraft. The engineering theory behind it I'm flat out to understand myself!

 

Micgrace

 

 

[Alpi]

In most cases shimmy occurs on trailing or castering nose wheels, an example the jabiru and is 90% of the time caused by under inflated tyres.

 

The simplest approach to vibration on nose wheels is first check the tyre pressure, if that does not fix it balance the wheel.

 

I"ve used an aluminium tube through the wheel bearings on 2 lengths of angle mounted and leveled on tressles and always won the battle. Aviation balancing machines will go to 6 inch wheels, I balanced 100s of EMB120 nose wheels as part of my job but it"s expensive equipment not available to most of us.

 

Greg A

 

 

[Guest micgrace]

Hi Greg,

 

That's a nice and simple static balance method for home use.

 

Myself, I tend to complicate things (probably comes from uni.)

 

Micgrace

 

 

[Guest micgrace]

Hi guys, I learnt in a wire braced Drifter originally, I was solo in something like 8 hours (having never been in anything less than a 7xx previously), and mostly flew circuits for the next 12. I did find it somewhat of a challenge moving to much more sophisticated types (conventional) when the need arose.

 

Basically I had to get co-ordinated, learn the different locations of controls,equipment, procedures, different handling and flight characteristics.

 

I believe it's a very good idea to get some training (at least 5 hours) in the aircraft you want to buy, before you buy it.

 

Micgrace

 

 

[Matt]

With regards the Sportstar and LSA, the Sportstar was first in the US and Australia to gain LSA certification with a MTOW of 600KG as original design i.e. ours rated to 544KG in Australia under RA-Aus is the same aircraft that's LSA rated to 600KG. In my opinion anything under 500KG MTOW with two average Aussie blokes on board is going to struggle to be able to make use of large fuel tanks. With 65L and 544KG MTOW, the 'old' Sportstar has a comfortable 3.5 hour endurance with reserves and can be fully fuelled with two passengers and a reasonable amount of luggage and be at orunder MTOW...with the luxury of knowing that the airframe can actually handle another 66KG.

 

 

[Matt]

Ignore the parts of my last post that incorrectly state the Sportstar as being first for LSA certification etc....bad memory...age not to blame though unfortunately. I do believe it's the first to be registered LSA in Australia though as per press release from the dealer and factory.

 

 

[Guest Jetgirl]

Hi, we went up and had a look at the new Lightwing Speed. We were able to fly the prototype. Great plane and very well built. We suggested a few small changes to the design and are thrilled to find out that a couple of these changes have been implemented into the final product. It is excellent value for money and Australian made.

 

Jetgirl